Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a234ed533a8ec77b

Jump to content

Talk:Jacob Carruthers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Bricology in topic NPOV issues

Split

[edit]

This seems to be two separate articles, one concerning Carruthers, another being a list. Any thoughts? Matthew Platts 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bernal on Carruthers

[edit]

Martin Bernal in Black Athena, Vol. I, p. 436, gives a citation from Essays in Ancient Egyptian Studies, Los Angeles 1984. --Dlugacz (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

NPOV issues

[edit]

Some of the claims in the article seem to border on pseudohistory or hyperdiffusionism, including a reference to “the classical Afrikan language” (which one?) Although written in Wikipedia’s voice, it is endorsing Carruthers’ non-mainstream perspective on history rather than merely describing it. This should be addressed. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Strong agreement here. The entire article needs to be rewritten in a neutral, scholarly voice, to have nonsense like "...such formidable minds as Anderson Thompson, Robert Starks, and Conrad Worrill..." and "...upon which liberated Afrikan institutions would be built..." and "...immediately threw himself towards the task of learning the ancient language of Kemet, Mdw Ntr, so as to have a direct access to the ancient sources, while urging others to do likewise as a matter of urgency" replaced with sober, properly-sourced information. It's not merely that the claims made here are rejected by most serious historians, but that they're delivered in a tabloid-level promotional style unfit for an encyclopedia. Bricology (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply